A2A Spitfire Update 7th Jan 2011!

[Tim-HH]

One word...Wow! :jump:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum_picts/accusim_spitfire/spitmkIa_1.jpg

>>A2A Forum<< (http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23359)

Greetings
Tim

[kcgb]

:jawdrop:

[Matt Wynn]

*falls off chair in amazement* someone get the drool buckets.... we're gonna need them...

[Aviator32]

Er, yes. I think I might quite like one of those :icon_eek:


27448

27447

:jawdrop:

'The New Accu-sim builds upon our already award winning code base, consolidates everything and then thrusts it forward so that not only will you be flying the most realistic Spitfire simulation on the market for any Flight Simulator but also will have the chance to truly 'own' the aircraft, but more on that later...'


I wonder what that means? Hopefully not that it will cost nearly as much as a real one!

[big-mike]

Anyone knows,if Accusim is for the Solo Spit,
or a completely new aircraft+Accusim?
Michael

[calypsos]

I think it is all new, they are using it as a test model for the Acu-Sim P-51, which will come after.

[stiz]

Anyone knows,if Accusim is for the Solo Spit,
or a completely new aircraft+Accusim?
Michael

yup all new like the p47 i belive

[SADT]

Very cool. All I can say. :jump: :isadizzy::jawdrop:

[GBrutus]

Very impressive work indeed. Which actual marks in particular will be included in the package?

[Barfly]

Ownership... perhaps the new modularity of Accusim will allow us to 'drop' a Merlin into another aircraft? hmm...

[jankees]

oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[huub vink]

The model looks absolutely incredible on the screenshots!

Huub

[Akatsuki]

The model looks absolutely incredible on the screenshots!

Huub

Indeed this model looks really really well!:jump:

[stiz]

Very impressive work indeed. Which actual marks in particular will be included in the package?

just going purley by what i've seen .. its seems to be the MKI with both types of props, 2 blade fixed pitch and the 3 blade variable pitch prop :jump:

[OleBoy]

Holy Ship! The looks alone are incredible :icon_eek:

[SADT]

Very cool. All I can say. :jump: :isadizzy::jawdrop:
I have thought of something to say: Holy Cr@p! :icon_eek:

[robcap]

Check out this monster of a wooden prop. You can swap out a variable and constant speed on the fly thanks to Accu-Sim's aircraft management
Amazing coding behind that feature alone :salute:

Cheers, Rob

[oldpropfan]

Own the aircraft? Maybe a new module that automatically deducts from your bank an appropriate amount every time you break something :icon_eek:, that'll teach us to sit up and fly straight.

Looks fantastic, will definitely get one.

[SADT]

Own the aircraft? Maybe a new module that automatically deducts from your bank an appropriate amount every time you break something :icon_eek:, that'll teach us to sit up and fly straight.

Looks fantastic, will definitely get one.

I guess that would mean no hedge trimming LOL:icon_lol: :icon_eek:

[SADT]

'Rabbit Leader, This is TeaTree. I have some trade for you - Bandits 100+ at Angels 15 over Luton. Please acknowledge Rabbit Leader and scramble B Flight please. That will be all Rabbit Leader - Good luck, TeaTree out.' :icon_lol:

[Roadburner440]

No hedge trimming, lol.. My P-47D Accu-sim was very good at that for a number of weeks after its release. Was able to get it into the air high enough to clear the initial trees and then down she went as airspeed bled. I assume you guys mean you are flying low on purpose though. Accu-sim certaintly is wonderful.

[BOOM]

27657I've been doing some P-47D "LANDSCAPING" Myself lately!!! haha!!:icon_lol:
27655

Very curious what Lewis means by "Ownership" of The Upcoming Spitfire?I Can't wait to make that V12 Merlin.......Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!:jump:

[txnetcop]

That is why I love A2A Accusim. I have to have something to do especially monitoring of aircraft systems or I get bored and quit before I even land. While I love the detail in the new FSX aircraft we have available to us...I love being busy! I'm seeing developers put more thought in the systems and engines now in the aircraft they produce for us. I really like that!

I owned a Cessna 140 that basically flew itself but as the engine and electrical got older I enjoyed it more because I had to pay more attention to everything (including picking out places to land in an emergency-don't worry I know how stupid that sounds). I moved over to a very used Taylorcraft Model 20 Ranch Wagon with the Continental 225hp O-470-J engine and loved that one for the very same reason, except that now I could scare more passengers than myself when that engine started acting up for no good reason. That Bendix-Stromberg carburetor could be real pain at times. I can't count the times pilots would tell me to get the fuel injected IO model engine instead...but I just got a kick of learning the quirks in that engine and mastering it. The A2A 377 and P-47 do exactly that for me. Mess up and it's curtains! Then you gotta dead stick or nurse a very sick engine until you find a suitable place to put her down. Thank you TEAM A2A!!!

I can hardly wait for the Spit to come out! I know how hard that team works to beta those products. It takes real mastery of those engines to do a great beta job!
Ted

[Roadburner440]

Yeah, for me the worst of all the birds to master was the P-47D.. Not necessarily for the systems, but for the takeoff and landing with that huge cowl in the way. Not to mention since I use real weather, and I am in Florida. The first takeoff I did with it in the summer time I almost plowed into the tops of the trees. I had to jettison all 3 of my external fuel tanks and even then was barely able to climb. So anymore I actually do a miniature DA calculation to see what the max weight I can take off at X runway is with their birds. Haven't had any issues since. Now I do a long approach coming in hot, and then as I get about 150-200ft off the runway I start to flare it up to bleed off the speed and drop the gear. Hopefully the spit being a V-12 will have slightly better visibility, but a video I watched on you tube by the RAF demo pilot said visibility is pretty poor when flying low. Very informative though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8NDqZhlc

[stiz]

Hopefully the spit being a V-12 will have slightly better visibility, but a video I watched on you tube by the RAF demo pilot said visibility is pretty poor when flying low. Very informative though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8NDqZhlc

good vis whilst landing a spit?!?! not a chance of that :bump: .. best aproach to landing is basicly doing a ww2 carrier landing aproach ... when your wing is level with the runway threshold at a few hundred feet then turn in and land :)

[Bomber_12th]

Compared with something like a P-47 or P-51, a Spitfire, especially the early marks, landed very much 'power-off', throughout approach, unlike the P-47 or P-51, which throughout approach, you have very much 'power-on'. The Spitfire is a light airframe, with a lot wing, and the airspeed on approach and landing is sometimes 'surprisingly' slow compared to heavier American designs. As one pilot once described, pulling the power back to proper speeds throughout approach in the Spitfire, was quite concerning to him at first, since he was so accustom to landing the Mustang - in which if you brought the power back as far as you would in the Spitfire, the Mustang would simply fall out of the sky before you ever reached the airfield (same can be said for the P-47), where as the Spit just continued to fly like a 'normal aircraft' all the way down to a very slow, 65-68 kts, three point landing. In a Spitfire, you aren't showing proper landing technique, if you don't land it all three points at once (some, like me, would say that about most all tail-draggers, the P-47 and P-51 included) - and as a result, your view does become obstructed just as you pass over the threshold, requiring visual cues of the runway from your left and your right.

Another thing, which I am sure will be one of the 'main-points' when landing this upcoming product, is that with flaps down in a Spit, the air through the radiator(s) is blocked, which tends to heat up the coolant quite fast. Typically you wait with the flaps, for this reason, until you are on final, rather than base. Once you have touched down, you want to raise the flaps as soon as you have the aircraft under control - however only at low speed, as sometimes the flaps like to rise at different rates, and at speed, through your landing roll-out, this could lead to problems. On a go-around, it is normal to make at least one complete circuit, with gear and flaps up, before attempting the next landing, to allow the coolant to cool off, especially since a go-around is performed with flaps down until a positive climb rate as been achieved, and the gear is up.

[mike678]

I am also greatly looking forward to the release of the Spitfire. As bomber says, Spits land very slowly for a warbird and were designed to take-off quickly from grass fields. I'm thinking it will be a great way to tour the bush strips in the various FTX regions.

I wonder if A2A will simulate the difference between the fabric and metal ailerons.

A question for the Spitfire experts: Was the two-blade, fixed pitch prop ever fitted to the Merlin III? I thought the initial Spits had a Merlin II with either the 2-blade wooden prop or a 3-blade, 2-position (coarse or fine) prop, and the Merlin III's were all fitted with the constant speed prop.

[stiz]

i belive the 2 blade prop was only used in the battle of france??


is that with flaps down in a Spit, the air through the radiator(s) is blocked

never heard that before, i knew it overheated easerly on the ground due to lack of airflow but never with the flaps down .. allthough i can see how its possible.

[ICDP]

I know the gear legs on the Spitfires blocked the cool air flow into the radiators. The flaps are behind the radiator so shouldn't cause any problems. I don't remember ever reading the flaps caused any problems, but am prepared to be wrong. :)

[Roadburner440]

I would imagine that like any other radiator the air goes straight through (am not that knowledgable on the Spit, so unsure if it is ducted upward or straight through out the back), but if it goes straight out the flaps would block the airflow going out the back. Basically acting as if you had your cowl flaps closed on a radial engine bird, and the heat would just build up in that area... A lot of cool tid bits put up here. This looks like another one I will be crashing several times learning to land it if the whole landing sequence goes as described above. Certaintlysucks about the limitations of the cooling system though

[GBrutus]

I know the gear legs on the Spitfires blocked the cool air flow into the radiators. The flaps are behind the radiator so shouldn't cause any problems. I don't remember ever reading the flaps caused any problems, but am prepared to be wrong. :)

Yep, the gear legs were the main factor. The flaps may well have disturbed the airflow too but I think the primary reason for raising them was to avoid damage from debris.

[Lenop]

Thanks all, for sharing all these fantastic details on landing the Spitfire. This is why I love this forum so much.
Amazing what we can do in our FSX sim nowadays. I never would have dreamt about worrying about the gear blocking the radiator thus overheating the engine on landing in my (virtual) Spitfire! Just great stuff!

[SADT]

Compared with something like a P-47 or P-51, a Spitfire, especially the early marks, landed very much 'power-off', throughout approach, unlike the P-47 or P-51, which throughout approach, you have very much 'power-on'. The Spitfire is a light airframe, with a lot wing, and the airspeed on approach and landing is sometimes 'surprisingly' slow compared to heavier American designs. As one pilot once described, pulling the power back to proper speeds throughout approach in the Spitfire, was quite concerning to him at first, since he was so accustom to landing the Mustang - in which if you brought the power back as far as you would in the Spitfire, the Mustang would simply fall out of the sky before you ever reached the airfield (same can be said for the P-47), where as the Spit just continued to fly like a 'normal aircraft' all the way down to a very slow, 65-68 kts, three point landing. In a Spitfire, you aren't showing proper landing technique, if you don't land it all three points at once (some, like me, would say that about most all tail-draggers, the P-47 and P-51 included) - and as a result, your view does become obstructed just as you pass over the threshold, requiring visual cues of the runway from your left and your right.

Another thing, which I am sure will be one of the 'main-points' when landing this upcoming product, is that with flaps down in a Spit, the air through the radiator(s) is blocked, which tends to heat up the coolant quite fast. Typically you wait with the flaps, for this reason, until you are on final, rather than base. Once you have touched down, you want to raise the flaps as soon as you have the aircraft under control - however only at low speed, as sometimes the flaps like to rise at different rates, and at speed, through your landing roll-out, this could lead to problems. On a go-around, it is normal to make at least one complete circuit, with gear and flaps up, before attempting the next landing, to allow the coolant to cool off, especially since a go-around is performed with flaps down until a positive climb rate as been achieved, and the gear is up.

Thanks John,

I found that tidbit really interesting, and when I am flying my virtual Spitfire I will keep that in mind. I find it interesting though, all of my landings in the A2A Spitfire have been wheeler's and they all felt perfect, no bounce what so ever so some re-learning on my part is required LOL.:icon_lol:

[BOOM]

Scott from A2A Talks about The Spitfire overheating issues in the Oct. Update video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwK8sfFKfU

[Bomber_12th]

Thank you for those who better clarified/corrected what I meant about the flaps/radiator. As you can imagine, with the flaps down, there is really no where for the hot air to exit, thus it remains in the radiator. The gear legs of course are a bit more of an issue, since they of course have to remain down while on the ground, when there isn't much air going through the radiator anyway.

I have read that the Spitfire, at least the Mk.IX, runs very cool in flight - perhaps superior than the Mustang in this regard. However, on the ground, it is quite the opposite - as the old saying from the movie "Battle of Britain" goes...

"The engine's overheating, and so am I! Either we stand down, or blow up! Now which do you want?"

Reading up from a pilot report real quick, written by Jim Beasley, he actually advises to never raise the flaps until you are actually stopped - as with an air system powering the flaps, you may not get symmetric raising of the flaps which can make the rollout rather 'interesting'. Also he mentions, like other Spitfire pilots I have heard/read quotes from, that the narrow track landing gear, even in a 15-knot crosswind, is no real issue.

[SADT]

Thank you for those who better clarified what I meant about the flaps/radiator. As you can imagine, with the flaps down, there is really no where for the hot air to exit, thus it remains in the radiator. The gear legs of course are a bit more of an issue, since they of course have to remain down while on the ground, when there isn't much air going through the radiator anyway.

I have read that the Spitfire, at least the Mk.IX, runs very cool in flight - perhaps superior than the Mustang in this regard. However, on the ground, it is quite the opposite - as the old saying from the movie "Battle of Britain" goes...

"The engine's overheating, and so am I! Either we stand down, or blow up! Now which do you want?"

I loved that quote from "Battle of Britain" :D :icon_lol:

[stiz]

Thank you for those who better clarified/corrected what I meant about the flaps/radiator. As you can imagine, with the flaps down, there is really no where for the hot air to exit, thus it remains in the radiator. The gear legs of course are a bit more of an issue, since they of course have to remain down while on the ground, when there isn't much air going through the radiator anyway.

I have read that the Spitfire, at least the Mk.IX, runs very cool in flight - perhaps superior than the Mustang in this regard. However, on the ground, it is quite the opposite - as the old saying from the movie "Battle of Britain" goes...

"The engine's overheating, and so am I! Either we stand down, or blow up! Now which do you want?"

however they never sat on the ground with the flaps down, they didnt take off with the flaps down and they where raised as soon as they landed to settle the aircraft, the overheating was due it not haveing airflow, which is why the radiator was put onto the fuse on the mustang so the prop blew air through the radiator :)

[Bomber_12th]

Stiz, that is very true - I was just trying to relay something I learned from Spitfire pilot/owner Bill Greenwood, about the flaps causing some potential cooling issues, which I thought was interesting - especially about the concerns of raising the coolant temp, due to the flaps down, on go-around (perhaps something one might not think of, even when 'Accusim-ing' a Spit, including effects from flaps rising asymmetrically, etc.). It is a great point mentioning the radiator's actual positioning relative to the propwash!

[Bomber_12th]

Thanks John,

I found that tidbit really interesting, and when I am flying my virtual Spitfire I will keep that in mind. I find it interesting though, all of my landings in the A2A Spitfire have been wheeler's and they all felt perfect, no bounce what so ever so some re-learning on my part is required LOL.:icon_lol:

Three-point/tail-low, is just as well too. Main-wheel landings are good when you need the most visbility is front of you, though you will be landing faster than needed. With proper speeds you will be landing tail low, which will use up less runway, and you will have generally more control with the tail firmly planted on the ground, rather than having it possibly 'weathervaning' up in the air. Three-point landings are one of those signs of truly 'knowing' the aircraft.

[Tim-HH]

Hi,

Lewis has posted a few more pictures in the A2A Forum (http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=0&t=23359&p=177755#p177755) :applause:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum_picts/accusim_spitfire/spitmkIIa_5.jpg

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum_picts/accusim_spitfire/spitmkIIb_3.jpg

Greetings
Tim

[calypsos]

Just the right sort of sheen on that paint job, first class!

[Javis]

I must've died and gone to Heaven...

:jawdrop:

[jeansy]

i love it

it was the case back in fs9 you were a WOP(A2A) spitfire fan or a realair fan, funny enough i was both but i loved the texturing more so on the A2A bird,

I think with this package there will be a lot of new converts,

i hope they continue this with the zero, another fine bit of kit from the older WOP fighter pack

i might be having a brain fart but did the accusim 51 come out or is it still in development?

[Alan_A]

i love it

it was the case back in fs9 you were a WOP(A2A) spitfire fan or a realair fan, funny enough i was both but i loved the texturing more so on the A2A bird,

I think with this package there will be a lot of new converts,

i hope they continue this with the zero, another fine bit of kit from the older WOP fighter pack

i might be having a brain fart but did the accusim 51 come out or is it still in development?

The 51 is still in development. As I understand it, the Spit is the development platform for the Merlin that will then move over into the Mustang.

[stiz]

i hope they continue this with the zero, another fine bit of kit from the older WOP fighter pack


a2a have said several times they will not be updateing the zero.

[jankees]

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause:

[pilottj]

Three-point/tail-low, is just as well too. Main-wheel landings are good when you need the most visbility is front of you, though you will be landing faster than needed. With proper speeds you will be landing tail low, which will use up less runway, and you will have generally more control with the tail firmly planted on the ground, rather than having it possibly 'weathervaning' up in the air. Three-point landings are one of those signs of truly 'knowing' the aircraft.


Yeah that is interesting, I have found the Spitfires to be easier to land than the other warbirds for some reason. I lean my head'view' to the side and crab a little then straighten out just before touchdown and manage to usually get tail low landings even on narrow GA strips. The Spitfire has a narrow fusealage too so you see more when you lean to the side. The P-47 is a bit wider so you have a wider blind spot which makes narrow runways much more tricky.:jump:

[alehead]

Man, I am SO looking forward to this coming out...

I have always been a fan of the Spitfire, and an Accusim one is simply the dream come true...

Andrew

[BOOM]

To be Honest,I really wasn't a HUGE fan of The Spit[I really love Naval Aviation] but these new pics/videos really got me pumped up!!:jump: With the realism of Accu-sim and The Iconic RR Merlin V-12 I'm quickly changing my tune!!!

[jeansy]

a2a have said several times they will not be updateing the zero.

ah well easy come easy go ( i think i need to read more threads )

anyway the 47, spit and 51 will be just dandy anyway

[mike@myrtle]

Bought it, flown it, crashed it!
If you land too hard the undercarriage will collapse and prop shatter :isadizzy::redf:
29604http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/misc/pencil.png